Hugh Mackenzie
Huntsville Doppler
Nothing is more obvious these days than the reality that the world we live in is changing, almost, it seems, in the blink of an eye. Particularly now, as we endure the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic, we face new and uncomfortable norms such as self-isolation, social distancing, working from home, safer forms of greeting each other, in many instances unemployment, and certainly different ways in doing our jobs and going about our daily lives.
We all look forward to the day when everything returns to “normal” but the real challenge, the hard question, will be to determine what the “new normal” is going to be like. Not unlike wars, pandemics change things. World order is challenged, alliances change, customs change, and priorities change. Most significantly, those in power inevitably seek more power and seldom, once they have it, are they eager to give it up.
We have already seen signs of this, boldly in the United States, more subtly here in Canada. In the U.S., President Donald Trump has made no secret of the fact that he believes he has ultimate authority (one definition of a dictator) when it comes to managing the COVID-19 pandemic. Even in its total inaccuracy, it will take him less than a nanosecond to believe that he can apply that to almost anything he wants to do. The real terror is that he has stacked the Supreme Court to the extent that they could back him up.
Here in Canada, we should not forget that the Trudeau Government, in introducing legislation intended solely to offer much-needed relief to Canadians adversely affected by the COVID-19 virus, attempted to slip through what was effectively a suspension of Parliament for almost two years. Without a diligent Opposition, this would have occurred.
Democracy, to be effective and not to be weakened, requires oversight. Perhaps to their surprise, this is not the primary responsibility of the media, especially not one subsidized by the government. Rather, it is the legal responsibility of Parliament and provincial legislatures across Canada. That does not negate cooperation, especially in times of crisis, but as well it does not obviate the need for constructive oversight and criticism.
In this part of the world, we are fortunate that both Prime Minister Trudeau and Premier Ford have exhibited effective leadership skills during the current pandemic. Both strong partisans, they have put all that aside to deal with tough issues brought on by COVID-19. But that doesn’t mean that they are always right. Nor does it mean that they, or their governments, should duck oversight and accountability or prevent or minimize the ability of other legislators, regardless of their political affiliation, to play their elected role and offer their own alternate solutions. In Canada, the parliamentary process remains the bedrock of our democracy and it must not be trivialized or weakened.
Elizabeth May, former leader of the Green Party of Canada and still effectively their spokesperson, doesn’t get that. While holding only three seats in the 338 seat House of Commons, in practical terms she is giving Canadians only two choices. Either reduce Parliament to a virtual Zoom show where accountability and oversight will be next to impossible, or force all of Parliament to convene, resulting in inevitable health issues for Parliamentarians and support staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here is the background on this.
Under current regulations, Parliament must reconvene in full force on Monday unless there is unanimous consent by all members of the House of Commons to suspend the rules and agree to an alternate format to keep Parliament going. Twice since the COVID-19 pandemic hit, Parliament has met with minimum representation to respect social distancing in order to pass important legislation related to current circumstances. This was done with unanimous consent and it also allowed input and oversight by opposition parties.
Now Elizabeth May wants to withhold unanimous consent and shut all this down. Her reason? “Giving the Conservatives a spotlight in Question Period is not a reason to convene.” And again, “It only helps Scheer fling useless drama at a government finally working together (without him).”
Wrong on both counts Ms. May. Just as the Liberals currently hold responsibility for governing, Conservatives have an official, legal, and important responsibility to provide oversight and to hold the government accountable. It is their job. It is all the more important in times of crisis. It is also the democratic process, which does not allow for one without the other.
A virtual Parliament, in itself, is not sufficient. It does not adequately force the government to “face” Parliament. If democracies such as those in Japan, Italy, Germany, South Korea, Greece, Sweden, Finland, and the European Parliament can find ways to meet directly, why can this not happen in Canada, albeit with reduced numbers based on party representation?
With proper distancing and cleaning procedures in place, there is no reason why a quorum of Parliament cannot meet. It somehow defies logic that construction workers can continue to do their jobs on Parliament Hill, as they are, and yet members of the House of Commons cannot do theirs.
In a time of crisis, while it is important to find ways to work together, the last thing that should be done is to effectively shut down Parliament. It may make it easier for the party in power to govern, but it is also dangerous because democracies only survive when governments are held accountable.
I know that many of my Liberal friends believe that the Trudeau Government should have a free and unfettered hand to manage the various aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. But I wonder how they would feel if it were Andrew Scheer who was currently Prime Minister? Could it be that it is not so much an objection to critique, but rather about to whom it is directed?
Because a deadline of Monday to reconvene Parliament is looming, it will not surprise me if some kind of deal is reached by the time this commentary is posted. Mr. Scheer is proposing several in-Parliament sessions per week with representation similar to the previous emergency sessions. The Government is proposing one in-Parliament session with reduced representation and one virtual session per week. I come down somewhere in the middle, perhaps two in-Parliament sessions.
Whether or not Elizabeth May blocks any reasonable compromise remains to be seen. But whatever happens on Monday, it is important to remember that, in little more than a month, two attempts have been made to reduce the power and effectiveness and, indeed, the role of Parliament. We cannot allow that to happen.
Democracy must not be a victim of COVID-19.
Hugh Mackenzie
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox three times per week!
Thank you to the rational people who voted against having sittings three times a week in person. If accountability is what these politicians want it can be done virtually. Also, it can also include more representation from every part of the country. Personally I am tired of our leaders who are running down the World Health Organization and Dr. tTheresa Tam. Doug Ford has done a great job during this pandemic and so has Justin Trudeau. They have worked well together and I haven’t seen any of the provincial parties insisting on in house sittings.
Of course, this fine notion of democracy would only apply to MPs of Provinces west of the Maritimes who would be for to quarantine for 14 days upon return home. Realistically then they can serve their constituents or Parliament…..But who knows maybe your vision of Canadian democracy excludes “sitting” members from the Maritimes
A good point earlier, is there a Parliamentary Business Continuity Plan? And if so, where is it?Lets hope it’s not similar to the National Emergency Preparedness Plan that was missing-in-action to replace crucial resources. Government is responsible for managing the corporation of Canada, & 5 in-person weekly question periods is a Significant Cornerstone of communication to Canadians for that. These Members are paid to be in Ottawa for this & committees. To utilize an overarching nebulous umbrella of “safety” as a means to forfeit this, questions those currently in leadership positions? Evidence shows other democratic Countries legislatures & its elected Members are dutifully committed via personal attendance! What gives Canadian politicians the right to change their responsibilities in this regard to something much less? Does this then become a measure of their Confidence for Canadians?
I would suggest that Andrew Scheer and opposition MPs are relevant to these times; however, I think he and his party should pick better battles to fight than the number of in-person meetings.
Crafting needed legislation drafts from what we are learning during this pandemic and how to better address our response would be useful in an aftermath evaluation. Parties deserve our praise when they are working together for Canadians.
Hugh, is there a way you could find out the Canadian pandemic response plan for parliamentary sessions? And then compare these with the other European countries you have cited in your article? There are variable factors in each situation, so making sure that we are comparing apples with apples may be useful. Just a thought.
Sorry Hugh, these are not normal times. One live session per week and two virtual sessions a week (ZOOM) where you can select various party MPs from across this great land of ours to discuss the issues of the day . Many MPS coming from western /eastern provinces would have to self-isolate from their families for 14 days due to COVID-19 pandemic when they return home from Ottawa . I quote:
“Taking part in in-person meetings would violate the rights of MPs from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador. Those provinces have quarantine orders requiring that travellers returning from outside the provinces self-isolate — which would force an MP returning from a meeting in Ottawa to stay away from their family members for 14 days upon arriving home. ”
The Conservative leader, Andrew Scheer and his family, piled onto a nine passenger Challenger jet , without physical/social distancing so they all could go to Ottawa .
Sorry Hugh, you , like Andrew Scheer do not get it that these are not normal times.
Fear drives out reason, and if not careful will turn ordinary people into a mob mentality. Not mine but something I read in the past seems appropriate: (approximately) “the trick of the devil is to make you love your servitude”
Though we appear to be in the minority of commenters, Jody, I heartily agree. Scheer appears to be more and more irrelevant – even as head of the Opposition – as he uses whatever air time he can get to find something to “oppose!” If Doug Ford and Justin Trudeau can work together, ANYBODY should be able to!
Thank you Hugh,
I have been waiting, not quietly, at home with very similar questions and opinions. What I find frightening about this squabbling over how to re-convene parliament is why this conversation is even taking place during a pandemic.
Every large corporate entity I have ever worked for has a Business Continuity Plan. Does our Federal Government not have one? Whether it be pandemic, earth quake, tornado, toxic spill, explosion or war there should be an established, published plan on how to continue to govern Canada and its Provinces, Territories and Municipalities. This plan should be reviewed and revised on an ongoing basis. During a crisis the plan should be able to be opened and the instructions on how to go about policy, communication and procedures should be documented so it can be followed in each specific type of instance. Designing and implementing this plan should be done as a project by a task force.
This conversation on how to re-convene parliament, between our sitting Prime Minister and opposition party leaders, in the press, during a pandemic should not be taking place and does not give a sense of security that there is leadership here.
Thankfully, smarter heads prevailed and the Conservative motion for multiple sittings in Parliament was defeated. This whole thing was nothing more than Andrew Scheer trying to get some TV time to bolster the conservatives sagging poll numbers. The health of all parliamentarians, staff and others in the house should far outweigh the selfish need of one party to get attention during a pandemic. Shame on the Conservatives for using the guise of democracy to bolster there own self interests.
A good time to raise the importance of government and media to Canadians. Setting aside that all governing parties in power subsidize our media because Canadians value a national voice, I suggest that there is some “tempest in a tea pot” occurring in your article.
Robust opposition, oversight is essential always, and this time of our collective experience is no exception. In my opinion, Canadian democracy and parliamentary accountability are not in jeopardy by having one live sitting per week instead of 2 or 3. My understanding is that there continues to be all party committee work being done by virtual means.
The concerns of members of the NDP, Bloc, 3 members of Green party, and the Liberals should be taken into consideration. Why would Elizbeth May be concerned? Oh, wait, isn’t the Green Party concerned with science (climate, earth, biological)? There may be more to her concern than partisan politics, such as reduction in physical exposure for all members of government. We do not want to lose any of our elected MPs to illness or worse. Yes, as you point out, there has been a resolution to these differences.
When I think of parliament being shut down, I can’t help but remember Dec 2008 when Stephen Harper, in a minority position, could not “face” parliament and prorogued parliamentary session until late January 2009, (albeit with constitutional authority) – for far less reason than a pandemic. Thank you for listening.
Welcome back, Hugh.
I agree completely that oversight is vitally important in this time.
The floor plus gallery allows for distancing and attendance. The press and nonessential workers can be virtually in attendance until we are over this crisis.
The earlier attempt to slip through changes to agreed upon policies is proof that we need to have the clarity that opposition provides.
Couldn’t agree more with everything you have just said Hugh.
I propose a simple solution; find out what the bare minimum quorum is and parse that to the percentage of parties in the house and let them get down to business. According to the BNA that number is 20, so take that and divide it by the percentage for representation. this is the current standing;
Liberal 157 46.4
Conservative 121 35.8
Bloc Québécois 32 9.5
New Democratic 24 7.1
Green 3 0.9
Independent 1 0.3
Perhaps this could be the model for democracy going forward in these trying times?
Total 338 100%
Take their temperatures and let cooler Heads prevail ! ?
Good to see the printed word from You again Hugh . Thought You were isolating You’re opinions .
Well said Sir!!! This is so true , also the same over fear that is or has been built by the same government ..